Creation
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-01-2011, 12:21 AM
 
RE: Creation
Theophilus, I can guarantee you that 99% of the members of this site have heard this argument before and weren't convinced the first time. What makes you think that your mad storytelling skills will win us over this time?

There's a reason we haven't accepted what you're saying. A whole group of intelligent, well-reasoned, thoughtful people have found your evidence lacking. We've investigated this claim before and found it to be completely groundless. Does that tell you anything?

Probably not, but I haven't talked a lot today and needed to get it out. Wink
Quote this message in a reply
09-01-2011, 01:59 AM
RE: Creation
You're making the Bible say what you want it to say, you aren't even really reading it. "This is right, so if I change the meaning of this word, then that would make the Bible right." Seems to be your approach to reading it.

Also, your arguements are full of perhapses, or maybes, that is not the basis of a discussion, because nobody will fully understand where you stand. Also, I suggest you look at the Noah's Ark thread, if you can't convince us of Noah's Ark, you sure as hell won't convince us of the Creation Myth.

Which reminds me of a definition for insanity: Doing the same thing and expecting different results.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-01-2011, 01:33 PM (This post was last modified: 09-01-2011 03:45 PM by theophilus.)
RE: Creation
(07-01-2011 01:05 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  That would mean that after the light "slowed down" there would have been a period of 4.3 years where NO stars were visible in the night sky.
If light were slowing down its apparent frequency would be reduced and it would produce the red shift which astronomers actually observe. Since they thing that the speed of light is constant they explain the red shift by saying that other galaxies are moving away from the earth.

This shows that there are some scientists who think that light is slowing down:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39733

Quote:Setterfield expected to see the recorded speeds grouped around the accepted value for light speed, roughly 299,792 kilometers /second. In simple terms, half of the historic measurements should have been higher and half should be lower.

What he found defied belief: The derived light speeds from the early measurements were significantly faster than today. Even more intriguing, the older the observation, the faster the speed of light. A sampling of these values is listed below:

In 1738: 303,320 +/- 310 km/second
In 1861: 300,050 +/- 60 km/second
In 1877: 299,921 +/- 13 km/second
In 2004: 299,792 km/second (accepted constant)

Setterfield teamed with statistician Dr. Trevor Norman and demonstrated that, even allowing for the clumsiness of early experiments, and correcting for the multiple lenses of early telescopes and other factors related to technology, the speed of light was discernibly higher 100 years ago, and as much as 7 percent higher in the 1700s. Dr. Norman confirmed that the measurements were statistically significant with a confidence of more than 99 percent.
Quote:Within the last 24 months, Dr. Joao Magueijo, a physicist at Imperial College in London, Dr. John Barrow of Cambridge, Dr. Andy Albrecht of the University of California at Davis and Dr. John Moffat of the University of Toronto have all published work advocating their belief that light speed was much higher – as much as 10 to the 10th power faster – in the early stages of the "Big Bang" than it is today. (It's important to note that none of these researchers have expressed any bias toward a predetermined answer, biblical or otherwise. If anything, they are antagonistic toward a biblical worldview.)

(08-01-2011 07:48 PM)SecularStudent Wrote:  
(07-01-2011 11:43 AM)theophilus Wrote:  Here is something from the Biblical contradictions article on this forum:

http://thethinkingatheist.com/bible_contradictions.html

Quote:HOW DID THE STARS GIVE LIGHT TO THE EARTH?

God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.

I'd like to point out two things from this quote that demonstrate that this god is dumb as shit.

First: "the lesser light to govern the night". An all-knowing god should know that the moon does not produce its own light; it reflects light from the sun. It only appears to give off light to those observing the moon from Earth at night. (During the day, when the sun and the moon are visible at the same time sometimes, the moon does not give off any perceptible light.)
Since he made the moon he obviously does know it. What difference does that make?

Quote:Second: "He also made the stars". Wait, so our sun isn't a star? Or was our sun not made yet, and there is some other, imperceptible light that "governs the day"? How intelligent is this god, not to know that the sun is just another star? He should know, if he created all of them!
He knew the sun is a star but he also knew that the Bible would be read by many people who didn't know it. The Bible is written in such a way that anyone can understand it, no matter how much or little scientific knowledge he has.

The information in ancient libraries came from real minds of real people. The far more complex information in cells came from the far more intelligent mind of God.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-01-2011, 02:40 PM
RE: Creation
Quote:This shows that there are some scientists who think that light is slowing down:

There are no scientists who believe this. None. Not one. This nonsense first appeared in the late 80s or early 90s and there is absolutely no scientific evidence to back it up.

Here is one link that explains why.

But, in the interest of fairness, find one, just one, peer reviewed document that backs up the claim of light slowing down and I'll consider it a possibility and re-think my entire view on god. Just one. Since "some scientists" are considering this, I'm sure there is at least 1 peer reviewed article to back this up.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-01-2011, 02:46 PM
RE: Creation
Dr. Trever Norman specializes in gastroenterology.
Your source is painfully biased, calling science a dogma (if you agree with their claim, nobody on this site has any more reason to conversate with you, the reason being is you are trying to use psuedoscience to support your case and dismissing all real science).
Setterfield has been the object of redicule among the scientific community.

Please excuse me if you still fail to convince me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-01-2011, 03:28 PM
 
RE: Creation
(09-01-2011 01:33 PM)theophilus Wrote:  In 1738: 303,320 +/- 310 km/second
In 1861: 300,050 +/- 60 km/second
In 1877: 299,921 +/- 13 km/second
In 2004: 299,792 km/second (accepted constant)

Honestly, why are you here? Do you hope to "convert" us or something? You clearly are so entrenched in your viewpoint that our constant annihilation of your points doesn't phase you.

You find any passing glimpse of evidence that could maybe possibly support your point of view that you present them as concrete scientific fact, having been sufficiently re-assured that that your divine fantasy really is true, even though this so called evidence you cite is just a bunch of baloney.

Anyways, look at the margin of error in the earlier values. That alone basically compensates for the difference.

And, as technology becomes more sophisticated, we become more accurate and precise with our measurements. The modern value of pi is slightly different than what is was several hundred years ago because we are more precise in our measurements. Does that mean that the ratio of a circle's circumference to its radius has changed? I bet it would, if this somehow gave credibility to the Bible.
Quote this message in a reply
09-01-2011, 05:54 PM (This post was last modified: 11-01-2011 01:29 AM by No J..)
RE: Creation
YEC's making up shit to push their preconcieved doctrine is proof. Thousands of serious scientists working painsakingly to tease the real answers out into the open is biased and wrong. It is amazing how some people think. I think that a tiny percentage of atheists has probably saved the human race from extinction on many occasions. And look at the gratitude. How pathetic.

Yeah I am being facetious, and "maybe" stretching a little, but when all reason fails there is nothing worthwhile that is left. Theophilis harbors the mindset that makes religion dangerous. If someone like him gets in power there will be hell to pay. Freedoms will be extinguished, and that is just the start.

When I find myself in times of trouble, Richard Dawkins comes to me, speaking words of reason, now I see, now I see.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-01-2011, 10:33 PM
RE: Creation
Yep and you just crossed the line into total stupidity Theophilus. You are not a physicist and have shown little to no understanding of the real concepts.

You don't take the world and try to twist it to fit a book for the book to be true. You take the book and see how it compares to reality to see if it is true.

For those of us with honesty we toss out the book. That is the strength of intellectual character that science promotes. We change our views on a regular basis when presented with real evidence of a theory. We don't try and make theories fit our worldview. We change our worldview towards truth in light of discovery.

Try it sometime. It's called critical thinking.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-01-2011, 01:53 PM
 
RE: Creation
(09-01-2011 01:33 PM)theophilus Wrote:  He knew the sun is a star but he also knew that the Bible would be read by many people who didn't know it. The Bible is written in such a way that anyone can understand it, no matter how much or little scientific knowledge he has.

Well of course many people "didn't know it" if they were never told. You can't expect somebody to know something if they either aren't told or don't have the ability to observe things like we do now. Explain to me how writing "the sun is a star" makes it too complicated for people to understand?
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: